I can’t say I’m surprised it came to threats from the Mayors of Boston and Chicago, and a Chicago Alderman, to deny Chick-fil-A a business permit because the owners support the traditional definition of marriage as one man – one woman. Or that two other Mayors, in San Francisco and D.C., have jumped on the bandwagon telling Chick-fil-A to stay out of town.

So long as Obama supported the traditional definition of marriage, Democratic politicians and support groups had to tread carefully in how far their rhetoric and actions went. Once Obama came out in support of gay marriage, Democrats were freed to accuse anyone and everyone who supports the traditional definition of marriage as bigoted and unworthy of a place in their jurisdictions.

Now the “bigot card” is on full display as a centerpiece of Democratic politics.

And make no mistake, effectively banning the support of traditional marriage as “hate speech” is where the movement is heading. It is impossible to have a discussion of the issue without supporters of traditional marriage being called bigoted. “Bigot” is the new “racist” and the “bigot card” is the new “race card.”

Such an argument, however, is tantamount to an admission that persuasion as a political tactic has failed.

You saw that undertone even from those who understood that the Mayors and Alderman stepped over the boundaries of government power and that their threats, if carried out, would violate the First Amendment. Frequent analogies to the KKK having a right to speak in public were used in defense of the First Amendment rights of the owners of Chick-fil-A, and by extension, the entire evangelical Christian movement, the Catholic Church, and other religious groups.

The use of government power to punish those who hold traditional marriage views is the logical conclusion of the private boycott movement, such as the boycott of Mormon-owned businesses in the wake of Prop. 8 in California.

There is a difference between private boycotts and the unconstitutional exercise of government power.

But when the boycotts seek to shut down discussion on the ground that support for traditional marriage is “hate speech” and the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, we should not be surprised that some politicians take it a step too far.

That the most prominent group advocating for same-sex marriage, The Human Rights Campaign, came out in favor of Boston Mayor Menino’s initial threats demonstrates that some in the movement are willing to trample constitutional rights.

The tactic of shutting down public dialogue may be effective superficially, but it cannot achieve the desired result. Shutting down dialogue with false charges of bigotry does not persuade, it simply drives the views underground.

Is it any surprise that every time gay marriage has come to a vote there has been shock that opposition was far greater than polls predicted? Demonizing supporters of traditional marriage didn’t change any minds, it just stopped the dialogue.

I am doubtful that five Justices on the Supreme Court will be persuaded that gay marriage is a federal constitutional right. Even the 9th Circuit avoided that issue in upholding a district court decision vacating California Prop. 8, ruling instead on the more narrow ground that taking away a right to gay marriage (created by the courts) was unconstitutional.

Ultimately, supporters of gay marriage will have to persuade the public that gay marriage is a positive. And in the privacy of the voting booth, political correctness holds no sway and demonization doesn’t work.

Some people just can’t take good advice, so I expect that these words will fall on deaf ears, or lead to more threats and false accusations.

Reactions

Comments

“Demonizing supporters of traditional marriage didn’t change any minds, it just stopped the dialogue.”

And created back-lash! Does anyone seriously think that the histrionic, nasty, belligerent tactics against an entire business because the owner simply believes in “traditional marriage” doesn’t give the typical American voter pause when it comes time to choose in such issues?

You actually gotta hand it to Obama on this one. He comes out and says he supports gay marriage. Well, so what? No one introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage at the federal level, giving him something to sign. He’s not undertaking a campaign to repeal DOMA. He just made a speech that has no real-world impact. And they’re all swooning.

Just last night I exchanged emails with a left-wing, clap-hands-over-ears-when-some-conservative-issue-approaches cousin. It had been a while since we corresponded, so I asked what she liked about Obama. “Stance on gay marriage” was number three. When I pointed out that, until the speech, he had the same attitude toward it as the chairman of Chick-Fil-A, she changed the subject.

Funny how bigotry against those expressing the support for the traditional(and most successful) ordering of society is now acceptable by the those whose vision has brought this country to the brink of ruin.

Pejorative and ad hominem slurs are the signs of a weak mind and untenable argument. They are like all of their collectivist,relativist ilk in that there first inclination is not to convince you but coerce you. Their preferred way of organizing society was originally conceived as a religion by its master mind and they exhibit every tendency towards zealotry that of which they accuse their religious enemies

Their positions(abortion, homosexuality and androgynous gender rolls) naturally leads to the decline of humanity. Any evidence that their utopian construct is failing must be shouted down and those bearing the message slandered,

What we see now is their handy work. The result of a century of dishonesty in order to assuage their desire for the “vision of the anointed” and the satisfaction of their overblown egos.

Anytime we add the suffix “ism” to a word, we are indicating a philosophy, a system of thought, a way of looking at the world, a value system. One can be feminine, without embracing “Feminism”. One can be humanitarian, concerned with the human condition, without buying into “Humanism”; we can desire to be practical, concerned with everyday affairs, pragmatic, without believing for a moment the tenets of philosophical “Pragmatism”.

The suffix “ism” denotes “Adherence to a system or a class of principles characteristic of a particular doctrine or theory” and should inform us at its appearance that we are now dealing with a particular “Weltanschaaung”, a “worldview”. Such a system, if it’s consistent, will be replete with theoretical truth claims and a metaphysical structure which will lead to an entire value system, which, in turn, if adhered to, will determine our actions and circumstances.

JOHN KASS: City Hall turns chicken sandwich into thought crime. “So if a business owner makes public his personal views, it won’t be the public that decides whether to patronize the establishment. Instead, politicians will decide for us and swing the government hammer to knock the business down. The message from Chicago’s City Hall is simple: Speak out of turn and we’ll crush you.”

As we only concern ourselves with specific deeds that run counter to the LAW, progressives (and islamists alike) concern themselves with specific thoughts that run counter to their philosophy…

Knowing full well eventually the “law” will take care of itself.

We’re playing a 5 minute game of checkers, while they’re playing a 5 day game of chess.

This is why I’ve always asserted that no true conservative can support so-called “gay marriage.” What we’re seeing now is just the beginning of the troubles it will cause. Liberals hate Christianity and the ideals it stands for and the legalization of gay marriage is the method they will attempt to use to muzzle and subdue it. Wake up conservatives! This, like abortion, is NOT an issue that is even slightly negotiable!

***This is why I’ve always asserted that no true conservative can support so-called “gay marriage.”***

What is why? Because some idiots call those opposed names?

I know a lot of “true conservatives”…especially conservatives on the libertarian part of the bell-curve…who support gay marriage.

I happen to disagree, holding that “marriage” is a cultural norm with a clear, discrete meaning that should not be corrupted to accommodate a militant minority who what to be classed as fully “normal” by changing that norm.

Conversely, I have helped clients who wished to have the same abilities as married people do to have those abilities under the law. About the only thing I can’t provide them is the same treatment under Federal tax law, and some authority saying they are “married”.

I have no issues with civil unions NOT denoted as a “marriage”. As I’ve said, contract is a very expansive doctrine in the law.

The problem, Rags, is that the “gay marriage” movement is at its core totalitarian. Look at the case of the Arizona photographer who declined to photograph a “gay wedding” — she was sued, successfully! They are not satisfied with tolerance and acceptance — they demand approval, and will use the power of the state to compel it from you if you do not offer it “freely”.

You are correct, sir. Moreover, Obama appointed Chai Feldblum as his EEOC commissioner. She is a proud lesbian and former law professor, whose opinions — and now her power to implement them — include this:

“NOMINEE FOR EEOC OPENLY ARGUES FOR RULE OF HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS OVER CHRISTIANITY”

“Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.”

“Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty—which she also calls “belief liberty”—must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals.”

“And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people,” she wrote.”

“Protecting one group’s identity liberty may, at times, require that we burden others’ belief liberty. This is an inherent and irreconcilable reality of our complex society,” Feldblum wrote.”

The long and short of it is this: The ultimate affect of legalizing homosexual marriage is that it would destroy our First Amendment Rights. As the EEOC commissioner states, identity liberty (a cultural Marxist concept, read that PC) trumps belief liberty, never mind the shredding of the Constitution.

The left was in high dudgeon over the loss of life because of the wars when Bush was President. Not so much anymore, yet Military and Civilian deaths continue. This was used as a club against the Republicans.

Now, Obama is waging war so they need a new “club.” Romney supports traditional marriage and Obama now supports same-sex marriage. Aha—a new “club.”

The democrats are masters of the deceitful practice of bigotry, racism and fabrication and they apply this practice liberally to anyone who disagrees with them.

Common sense is the principal victim with all rules to basic logic being tosses aside. The past three plus years have provided a splendid example of this and look for it to continue unabated should the anointed one be returned to the throne…

I find the saddest aspect of the last 4 years is the unmasking of the “spokesperson – leaders” of the black – gay communitys as bigoted zealots. That any significant portion of either group has failed to step forward in protest of these tactics will to some degree set back decades of progress each has attained with flyover America. The people of these groups who live in flyover America will inevitably pay the price by being viewed with an increased level of caution by many of those amidst whom they live and work. This will not just be limited to mid America.

It will take more than voting Obama out of office to avoid this catastrophe. The Bush/Romney/Kennedy Republican option is not the antidote. We desperately need Operation Counterweight to be the dominant narrative this year, not “Anybody But Obama”.

“Anybody But Obama” means voting in the very people that inspired the Tea Party to form in the first place. Let’s curb our enthusiasm for November. A Romney victory is a very, very small part of what we need to do to turn the tide. Operation Counterweight is critical.

Total mischaracterization of what I said and I am not even going to bother straightening you out. You nose-holding Republican Uber Alles, party over principle dead-enders have reduced the GOP to being a cult for the very few who believer they are protecting the sacred esoteric knowledge. Wake up! Voters are fleeing “BOTH” Democratic parties today!
And whenever I need a belly laugh, I go back to the last day you posted at Michelle Malkin to remind me why you got thrown out. Then I go back to last week where the very same idiot almost got himself thrown off of THIS blog. I am heartened to see that I am not the only one who sees through the fraud you present everywhere you post. You are a lawyer? YOU?!?!

Cheney did not “dis” Palin. On the contrary, he said some nice things about her. His only point was that he believes that a VP candidate should be ready to take over from day one, if necessary, and he doesn’t think that in 2008 she was ready to be president. I don’t think anyone including her would dispute that; she was better suited for the presidency than 0bama, Biden, or McCain, and if by some misfortune she had suddenly found herself president in early 2009 I’m sure she would have learned quickly and done a reasonable job, but there’s a reason she wasn’t even spoken of as a candidate for president that year.

There may not be a lot of conservative support for “gay marriage,” but there is overwhelming support for civil unions for gays, which in fact is the law in California, where the civil union, as a matter of state law, confers the same rights as marriage.

Prop. 8 was about refusing to call all civil unions “marriage,” not whether the state would register a civil union.

That means that the rights of Californians were unaffected by Prop. 8, only the name of the type of civil union.

One of the most disturbing aspects is the obviously cold blooded political gamble made by Obama in exchange for talking about his record as President. Another one of those “lets change the subject” issues weve seen of late.
His supporters point to his evolving on the issue. If “evolving” means a desparate grasp at securing a voting group then maybe.
But please. When I see one of his daughters trot down the aisle with another woman? Ill be convinced.
The net result in all this, just like his change of heart around immigration is obvious once again.
Division. With the added bonus of a very vocal minority being “used” as the topic d’jour that avoids any discussion of his poor record. He has a new “army” out there and we see how the war is being waged.
Mind you..Im more than OK with special groups attempting to change the minds of others..but not like this.
Not with what amounts to a twist on McCarthyism. Not with threats to corporations.
The gay marriage issue isnt really that important to most folks. Its a handy distraction is all as a campaign device.
Obama has become the poster boy for something our old friend Kurt Vonnegut said years back.

“If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative. What could be simpler?”

He SAYS he has evolved, but does nothing to actually effect that “evolution”. No bill. No policy really, except crass atmospherics like having a bunch of crazy GLTwhatever militants in the White House for a hour or two of agitprop and photo ops.

Meanwhile, he has done as little as possible to alienate his Black base, who he knows OPPOSE gay “marriage” almost universally.

I live in Massachusetts and, unfortunately, read the Boston Globe. Would you consider submitting your blog post as either a letter to the editor or an op/ed column? There is so very little in the way of intelligent discussion of this issue in the Globe (to be fair, the editorial board questioned Menino’s judgment). Eating Chick-fil-A would be considered worse than smoking in an elevator here. Any help would be appreciated.

To a lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremist, a person is NOT a person. A person is a color, a gender, a sexual orientation, an income level, a senior, a student, an ethnic group, a religion, a political type, etc. The lunatic-left treats each of these characteristics independently from the others so the d-cRAT socialists can play their DIVIDE-AND-PANDER game by pandering to each characteristic separately. This disgusting process helps destroy the unifying fabric of society, it causes friction and dissent among all of the people and it fosters a disruptive and unhealthy competition between people in each characteristic area that is shamelessly exploited by the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists to benefit only themselves.

A lot of homosexuals and their families are being played for chumps by the political left. The left doesn’t promote gay marriage because it wants to help homosexual couples become accepted. If they did, the activists would try to act in a civil and accepting manner. For the hard left this issue has always been about creating a club to attack two of the forces that stand in the way of the leftist dream of an omnipotent state, traditional families and religious beliefs. That it is being raised now by Obama is because he thinks he can use it to paint Romney as unacceptably narrow minded to appeal to the suburban American voters they are fast losing.

The problem with this tactic for Obama is twofold. It creates a huge strain on the threads holding the Democrat coalition together because neither Blacks or Hispanics favor gay marriage. The over the top attacks also risk a backlash by the let’s all get along types Obama was trying to scare away from Romney in the first place.

Do they distinguish between individuals and their behavior? Do they use reason to discriminate between behaviors which should be normalized, tolerated, or rejected? Do they believe that there is ever cause to reject a behavior?

it simply drives the views underground

And with that prejudice is manufactured and enforced, in preparation for the next generation of “civil” and “human” rights activists to profit from.

opposition was far greater than polls predicted

We have an instinctive ability to recognize, and need to respect, the natural order. The conscious order is capable of overcoming many inconveniences, but evolutionary fitness is wholly ingrained in our perspective of reality.

Anyway, with the introduction of the “bigot card,” they lose access to the “ignorant card.” The Jews, Christians, and others who do not share articles of faith (e.g. evolution as a description of origin) promoted by the “secular” sect will at least have that.

Now all we have to concern ourselves with is the proliferation of homosexual behavior, and especially heterosexual behaviors which are similarly dysfunctional.

I was getting beaten up on this issue by the typical suburban grandmother/corporate airhead who gets all her news from Morning Joe and CNN. She spouts all the conventional wisdom because she mostly wants fit in at the big bank where she works. She stopped dead in her tracks when I said I don’t really worry about gay marriage in the long run. That without a credible promise of government guaranteed retirement income and health care getting married to members of the opposite sex and having enough children to support one in old age will suddenly become all the rage.

People don’t think of that. All these unconventional lifestyles beloved by the left -and by some libertarians- become very high risk without the government safety nets.

“Is it any surprise that every time gay marriage has come to a vote there has been shock that opposition was far greater than polls predicted?”

Not for us, because we know one undeniable fact about the Left in this country: they do not trust the people to make the right decisions. They’d rather be in charge of making the decisions instead of us. They think we’re too stupid to know what’s best for us.

Can they manipulate legislatures into approving gay marriage? Yes. Can they manipulate the courts, even the SCOTUS, into approving gay marriage? Absolutely Yes!

Can they manipulate the individual voter in the privacy of the voting booth during a referendum on the matter? No, No, and fifty million times NO!

Not to mention the Left don’t seem to think those who oppose gay marriage have a right to speak their minds on it and support their opposition wherever or whenever they see fit – they conveniently ignore the First Amendment freedoms of speech and of religious exercise. The overfilled parking lots and drive-thrus at Chick-fil-A, plus the filled church pews on Sundays confirms us the Left cannot manipulate a huge segment of the population in their favor by niceties. They can only do it by force.

And if you think they won’t use force to ram their beliefs down our throats, just wait. Give it enough time…

You have my sympathies. My Massachusetts relatives’ brains have all been turned to mush from long-term exposure to that leftist rag. Even my formerly-reliably-Republican-voting mother has gone squishy since she moved back to the Boston area about 11 years ago. It’s weird, but visiting Massachusetts friends + relatives these days feels a bit like walking into a cult meeting in progress.